Jack v.
08/07/2011
On ne peut plus ignorer que le GIEC (Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat) est un appendice du “Système” et s’est mis au service de SA survie. Dans sa hâte de contrôler le développement humain, ce groupe, qui représente une écologie qui est au service du Capital, a commis une maladresse, celle de tenter de s’intégrer à la gouvernance globale à travers un énorme mensonge, qui a été de lier le réchauffement climatique aux activités humaines, ce que les études démentent. Le but était de créer un juteux « marché du CO2 ».
Cette erreur sera, à mon avis, mortelle pour lécologie « officielle ».
Par ailleurs, il n’y a jamais eu de “débat de civilisation” mais au contraire, une tentative pour limiter les bienfaits de cette dernière aux pays du nord en tentant d’attribuer ses méfaits à ceux du sud (Cf la théorie des paysans du Sahel qui brûlent des plastiques comme ils étaient déjà soi-disant responsables de l’augmentation du taux de CO2 atmosphérique à travers leur usage considéré comme impie, du bois pour faire cuire leur repas).
Pendant ce temps, une poignée de pays en plein délire belliciste mais qui continuent de se considérer comme la crème des nations, consomment de la façon la plus idiote, des quantités phénoménales de ressources à mener des guerres en guise de réponses aux questions posées par l’évolution de leur situation économique et écologique, et ceci, avec la complicité de ceux qui sont considérés comme la “sagesse du Monde”.
Alors faut-il sauver ce dernier ? Évidemment non puisque cest le fonctionnement du système qui le contrôle qui rend la chose impossible. Il faut le laisser aller au bout de la folie, le laisser s’asphyxier lui-même pour redonner une chance aux espèces vivantes, incluant l’homme (celui du Sahel par exemple) de retrouver une vie libre et conforme à leur nature.
Quant à croire que nous pouvons détruire LA vie sur la planète, cest une plaisanterie : nous ne sommes à peine capables de stériliser correctement un instrument de chirurgie, alors un monde
Geraldo Lino
10/07/2011
Dear Christian:
Thanks for your remarks. Im sorry that I have to resort to the lingua franca, but mon Français est trés hésitant, though I can read and understand much of the language (its not that difficult for a Brazilian who studied it for two years in the high school decades ago, but I dont dare to speak or write in it).
Im also a geologist and a former environmental consultant turned analyst of international and strategic affairs who has been fighting the environmentalist radicalism that has been causing a lot of damage in the last decades, specially in developing countries like Brazil, where it has been instrumental in hampering many vital infrastructure projects and in brainwashing a good deal of the Brazilian society as to the nature of the real problems the country and Mankind itself are facing nowadays.
In this struggle, I and my colleagues at the Ibero-American Solidarity Movement (a group we founded in 1992) have been fairly successful in making the case that environmentalism is above all a political and ideological contrivance, an instrument of powerful supranational interests with an agenda of restricting the socio-economic-technological development and/or directing it according to their exclusivist goals. Accordingly, its alarmist campaigns are mostly devoid of scientific basis. This is not a conspiracy theory, just notice the roster of private foundations and governmental agencies that fund the big international Greenie NGOs (and many national ones too). One of them, the Brazilian chapter of the WWF, sued us ten years ago because of one special edition of our fortnightly newspaper in which we denounced their foreign-directed campaigns against the countrys interests. It took us nine years, a lot of money and two failed appeals to the higher courts from their part, but we won with an exemplary sentence from the lower court judge who recognized that our charges against them were legitimate and based on publicly known facts.
As part of this effort we have done hundreds of conferences and published four books on the subject: Green Mafia (2001), Green Mafia 2 (2005), a Portuguese edition of the prize-winner Canadian journalist Elaine Dewars Cloak of Green (2007 - the best journalistic investigation ever made on the movers and shakers of the international environmentalist movement) and The global warming fraud: how a natural phenomenon was turned into a false world emergency (2009 - this one authored by myself and also published in Spanish in Mexico last year).
This is not to mean that there arent environmental troubles all over the place; yes, there are, and a lot of them, but most are local (sometimes regional) in reach and not very difficult to solve with the needed recipe of political will, modern techniques and technology, common sense and above all a firm commitment to the common good and the development of the affected populations and their surrounding societies. Unfortunately, these last items are very much lacking from the biased political agenda usually marketed by the Greens and their political and financial supporters.
As I and others have been insisting, the solving of the real environmental troubles is in any way incompatible, for instance, with the possibility of raising the average per capita electricity consumption of the developing countries at least to the level now enjoyed by the Eastern Europeans. As you know, this is one of the best synonyms of social wellbeing and, as such, there is no reason why the developing countries should abandon their wishes of progress.
Another example: In many countries like Brazil, the most serious environmental problem is the pollution caused by the dumping of raw sewage on the water bodies. Less than half of the population here has access to sewage systems, only a few cities have sewage treatment systems and two thirds of the child internments it the public health system are due to water-borne diseases (a 2007 poll conducted by the British Medical Journal among physicians all over the world elected fresh water and sanitation infrastructure as the greatest medical advance of the last 150 years and this is a privilege still unavailable for almost half of the worlds population). Honestly, I have never seen one of the big Green NGOs, neither Hollywood stars nor political figures who love to travel to the developing countries to lecture people there on their responsibilities to protect their environment, campaigning for basic sanitation.
The climate issue is heavily saddled with such distortions. Last year I developed these arguments in a three-part article in English titled Climate Change: the Keywords, which was posted in several websites. If you are interested you can find it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/06/climate-change-the-keywords-part-1-of-3/,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/14/climate-change-the-keywords-part-2-of-3/,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/climate-change-the-keywords-part-3-of-3/.
By the way, and Im sure you know this, the current European obsession with the de-carbonization of its economy is reaching a trend that is nothing less than suicidal including for the politicians and carbon traders who promote it.
In short, my point is: for the first time ever, Mankind holds the necessary and sufficient body of knowledge and technical and physical resources for providing the virtual totality of the material needs for a population even larger than the existing one, opening the possibility of universalizing in an enduring and entirely sustainable way the general wellbeing levels enjoyed, for example, by the average European citizens, in terms of water, sanitation, energy, transportation and communications infrastructure, health and education services and other conquests of modern civilized life. Despite the fallacious neo-malthusian/environmentalist arguments against such perspective, the main obstacles to its fulfillment in less than two generations are mental and political, not physical or environmental.
Obviously, such perspective cannot be fulfilled in the framework of the present ordering of the world affairs. And here, judging from your arguments I think that we agree on the conclusion that Mankind is facing a full-scale civilizational crisis from which the environmental issues cannot be taken apart.
Such crisis, Im convinced, arises chiefly from the fact that the prevailing paradigm that guides the world political/military/economic/financial agenda has become utterly dysfunctional and out of tune with the universal laws that control the civilizational dynamics. Hence, the chasm between Mankinds higher potential achievements and the grim perspectives of most societies and countries, and between the political agenda of most governments and the real aspirations and needs of most people were never so deep as nowadays.
The worst aspects of the so-called globalization (or mondialisation, as you say in France) brought upon us things like: the prevalence of the sterile finance over the productive activities; the low-wage labor arbitrage; the compression of the middle classes; the rise of social inequality both in and among the countries; and a lot of other setbacks absolutely incompatible with a progressive civilization.
So, the worldwide deficit of social justice that has plagued Mankind ever and that started to be reverted in the first three decades after WWII, only to be re-reverted again from the mid-1970s onwards, has become unsustainable, unjustifiable and increasingly perceived as such (the American strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski calls this a revolution of political awakening). I think that this perception is the spark that is putting fire to the currently ongoing social unrest and uprisings in many countries in your neighborhood.
And any attempt of fixing such structure crisique (apud Dedefensa) by means of business as usual methods seems to be foredoomed to a miserable and very dangerous failure.
The gloomy and scientifically flawed discourse and the morally unacceptable restrictions and sacrifices proposed by the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the real environmental problems) are part of this structure crisique, in what concerns to the distortion of the perception of Mankinds real troubles and potential physical achievements. So, if we are to overcome our present civilizational crisis we need to throw the environmentalist outlook away in the nearest dustbin, in the same way as we need to set up a new world financial system and adopting a new cooperative and non-militaristic approach to the international system of relations between the sovereign nations.
Im convinced that the failure to do so in the near future will leave upon us the threat of a serious civilizational setback.
Well, but this is a long discussion. Perhaps we can continue it another day.
Greetings from Rio.
Ilker de Paris
15/07/2011
Une conference économique intéressante sur l’Euro et l’avenir de l’UE : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xck13c_charles-gave-euro-ligne-magino%20t-mem_n ews
Pour poster un commentaire, vous devez vous identifier